Epic Games talks about the possibility of Gears of War on PS3

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Monkey

That is a ridiculous argument, basically you are saying any fps released at its time was modern then. FPS's were played well outside of the PC before Halo, you can't simply erase previous games and claim Halo did it first, well you can but you'd be completely false.

It has nothing to do with discrediting Halo, it simply doesn't deserve credit for being innovative on reasons that were simply already done on previous games. That actually goes against the definition of innovation

Lol, this made me chuckle! That's why I think it was an EVOLUTION of Goldeneye. Not a Revolution.

[SoCalTiger]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

It's much like Doom is credited instead of Wolfenstein-3D even though both were made by the same company.

Well that is because most people suck and had never heard of Wolfenstein. The original that is.

I think a lot of people also forget that Quake was the first major game to implement "dual axis" perspective.

[bone crusher]

The Gears of War games are great games and I would buy them on PS3 in a heartbeat if given the right treatment. One can hope, but I honestly don't see this one in the crystal ball.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by bone crusher

The Gears of War games are great games and I would buy them on PS3 in a heartbeat if given the right treatment. One can hope, but I honestly don't see this one in the crystal ball.

I didn't see Mass Effect in that crystal ball either!

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by merrick97

With all due respect Maximus, I think the above statement about GeoW2 tanking is nothing but pure crap.

Gears of War 2 has sold over 5 millions copies. Only by Call of Duty standards would 5 million units sold EVER be considered tanking.

But please define the criteria for what leads you to make the statement about Gears of War 2 "tanking"

I'd agree with him on that if you look at the leaderboard's nobody plays that hunk of crap the way people invested time in gears 1. I'd say it tanked in that respect maybe not from conning people into buying it.

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

GoldenEye let you carry as many weapons as you could find. You had to cycle forward/back one by one but your collection never got too large as each level had a limited set; unless you used the all-weapons cheat! Perfect Dark was the same except Rare added the radial quick-select menu.

lol I remember being so good at hitting the bumpers to get it right where the gun you wanted would be

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Bungie's own games prior to Halo had everything Halo is credited with.

It's much like Doom is credited instead of Wolfenstein-3D even though both were made by the same company.


What a crock. I hereby declare that Halo is not "modern", therefore it doesn't count either. Has just as much validity as your claim.

*EDIT* BTW, I think Halo is a phenomenal game. I loved it. But not because it somehow drew a line in the sand between it and everything before it. It was just a damn good game.

Whether you guys accept it or not, it was THE game that began the shift of the FPS genre from the PC to the consoles.

Am I trying to claim that Halo is the greatest FPS ever? No. not even close. There are plenty of FPS that I liked better even when it came out (No One Lives Forever, Star Trek Elite Force to name a few) All I am saying is that Halo played an important part in console FPS history.

Anyway, I have said all I am going to say about Halo.

I am having a hard time deciding whether to play Bulletstorm (on 360) or Killzone 3.

[linkgx1]

I both loved and hated the secondary function in Perfect Dark. I've killed my self so many times in Goldeneye. I remember when I first saw 006 I blew up the tanks and failed the mission. I also remeber killing Boris when he pulled then gun out.......NATALYA YOU DUMBASS. GET OVER EHRE!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I'd agree with him on that if you look at the leaderboard's nobody plays that hunk of crap the way people invested time in gears 1. I'd say it tanked in that respect maybe not from conning people into buying it:

WHats your point? Nobody is playing Resistance 1 or 2 online anymore. Does that mean they tanked?

[Icemage]

I don't expect Gears 3 to show up on the PS3. The Xbox 360 has lost control of many of the exclusives it has gained this generation. Mass Effect and Bioshock going multiplatform were just as damaging to the Xbox 360 platform as Final Fantasy XIII and Tekken 6 going multiplatform for the PS3, if not more so.

Losing Gears of War as an exclusive would mean the only significant game you couldn't play on a PS3 would be Halo (and to a much lesser extent, Alan Wake). Considering that we're probably looking at new consoles in a couple years, that's going to be a very weak bargaining hand for people looking to see where to go in console generation 8 when Sony and Nintendo both continue to have strong in-house exclusive development.

As for people saying Gears and Halo aren't good games; stop it. They're good. Maybe not great to you but they're obviously good enough for millions of people to like them enough to buy them, and to be quite fair both series of games do a lot of things right and don't do a lot of things wrong. I'd certainly be happy to see Gears of War 3 or even a full trilogy on the PS3, but I'm sure Microsoft isn't blind to the reality of the value of having enough exclusives to bind customers to you.

Personally, I find Halo to be an above-average FPS that did some pioneering innovation in co-op and had few flaws aside from somewhat erratic level design and tremendously boring weaponry.

Gears of War popularized the concept of cover-based gunplay, and deserves praise for that if nothing else. It also happens to have decent writing and also few flaws.

[AranhaHunter]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

I can guarantee you if GCN launched with a Goldeneye sequel we wouldn't be talking about Halo today.

I'm not sure about that. The OG XBox was the only console that generation with a proper online infrastructure. What made Halo really popular was that it was one of the first shooting games that relied heavily on online multiplayer on consoles. SOCOM did it as well, but the PS2 online infrastructure was piss poor. I'm fairly certain that Halo was the first major online multiplayer shooting game on a console that had a robust online infrastructure, somebody feel free to correct me if my memory is failing me.

Originally Posted by merrick97

everybody is playing killzone 3 in th ps3 right now so bulletstorm might be a casualty of having a release date on another well anticipated.

Yeah that was a mess up on Epic's part IMO, they sent the PS3 version of the game to die, and from the demo, it looks like a fairly good game too.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by AranhaHunter

I'm not sure about that. The OG XBox was the only console that generation with a proper online infrastructure. What made Halo really popular was that it was one of the first shooting games that relied heavily on online multiplayer on consoles. SOCOM did it as well, but the PS2 online infrastructure was piss poor. I'm fairly certain that Halo was the first major online multiplayer shooting game on a console that had a robust online infrastructure, somebody feel free to correct me if my memory is failing me.

The first Halo did not have an online multiplayer component. It had split screen and direct link. Xbox Live didn't go online until a year after Halo was released.

Originally Posted by AranhaHunter

Yeah that was a mess up on Epic's part IMO, they sent the PS3 version of the game to die, and from the demo, it looks like a fairly good game too.

Bulletstorm is a whole helluva lotta fun.

[Monkey]

True, Live wasn't around but the best fun I had with Halo:CE was playing oline via xbox-connect If they brought Halo:CE to the 360 add Live functionality with dedicated servers, didn't change a thing in regards to the feel or anything, no re-balancing weapons.. All they change is the resolution and if wanted the textures aswell. I'd buy a 360 again in a heartbeat

[Toptube]

Originally Posted by Kyo28

That's a bit of stretch really. The Halo series has had an impact on FPS games, yes, but not on the entire console gaming world. There are lots of great games that haven't been influenced by Halo: Final Fantasy XIII, Uncharted series, Marvel vs Capcom 3 (or virtually every Capcom game for that matter) and many more.

*before I state the following, Please note I'm not a Halo fanboy and actually have not played ANY Halo since the first game*

While the Halo series was not technically always the first games to employ the following in a game, and Bungie's own previous games include many of the features made popular through Halo, Halo is directly responsible for the prevalence of these things in modern games:

the concept of regenerating shields and regenerating Health, it revived the concept and pushed it into modern game design.

Halo is responsible for the rise of modern online multiplayer on consoles, forcing the industry to take console FPS and console online more serioiusly. Halo is still unmatched in their matchmaking options. Also starting with Halo 3, every single match is recorded and you can access the recording and watch it with the camera placed nearly ANYWHERE. Free to take screenshots, cut videos from it, follow other players, etc. No other game that I know of implements this as a common feature and with such robust options for manipulation.

The only other game I know of since to implement any form of common match recording is Uncharted 2.

Some PC games allow this as a special options for server owners, but its not available to every single player.

Halo is responsible for ushering in enemy and weapon variety to FPS games. Again, they probably weren't the first but Halo revived the idea of weapons that aren't just used in a this one is bigger than the last hierarchy. Along with this, they implemented enemies that compliment this idea, as well as enemies that require unconvential means to kill (you can't just directly shoot everything).

Halo has always had really good AI. Not a first by any means, but still important because it actually is really super good, when many devs just blow smoke about their AI that actually isn't so hot (see: HL2 upon release).

Halo made it cool to have vehicles in FPS and since then several games have had their own "warthogs".

Halo popularized the concept of limiting the amount and type of weapons that you can carry.

You can see shades of the Halo series in so many games it is pretty crazy. I imagine Valve thought of the flood at least a little bit during initial planning of Left 4 Dead.

Pretty much the only thing that Halo did that didn't become rejuvenated in the industry was co-op. I'd say Gears of War takes that honor.



-------------------

Re: Gears of War on PS3

As has already been stated, every release of Gears could end up on PS3 at some point, short of any temporary contracts MS might hold. I really don't see it happening though until near the end of this console generation. Epic did give enough of a crap to put UT3 on PS3 with KBM support even. But at the time, the PS3 was in dead third. Its since caught up for a fighting second and Epic is growing tired of Gears. So they've finally released a new multi-platform game and are now talking about maybe doing more with the PS3. As of right now, Gears on PS3 is just Cliffy B and Epic stirring things up so that people will take notice of them. Cliffy B likes to be loud and say things because it works. Its publicity. They just released a new game that goes against current popular trends, they want people to know who Epic is and take notice of their games. Hey everybody, we are Epic, we make Gears of War, please play Bulletstorm.

[STARSCREAM]

I would LOVE for the Gears Of War series to come to PS3! I don't however think it will happen.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

GoldenEye let you carry as many weapons as you could find. You had to cycle forward/back one by one but your collection never got too large as each level had a limited set; unless you used the all-weapons cheat! Perfect Dark was the same except Rare added the radial quick-select menu.

Oh yeah. I think I'm going to fire up the N64 today and get a few mates over!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

I didn't see Mass Effect in that crystal ball either!

Mass Effect will never go to ps3. Mass Effect 2 it was seen as an inevetability to me.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by merrick97

With all due respect Maximus, I think the above statement about GeoW2 tanking is nothing but pure crap.

Gears of War 2 has sold over 5 millions copies. Only by Call of Duty standards would 5 million units sold EVER be considered tanking.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6209234....ewstop;title;7

Having said that given that the PS3 has made up almost all ground on the 360 sales, it may be too hard for Epic too ignore.

One scenario in which could see that MS could cut off exclusive money is that if MS has decided that they want to put all of their development dollars into the Kinect and based on what we have seen so far such a thing may not be that far fetched.

But please define the criteria for what leads you to make the statement about Gears of War 2 "tanking"

When MS and Epic both expected in excess of 8m for the title I think you can consider 5m tanking. I'm telling you what they said and why Gears 3 exclusivity was up in the air for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I think 5m is pretty damn good, but the franchise showed no growth which means very few new owners have bought into the title. Contrast that to Uncharted (Sony's competitor series) The first has sold 4m vs Gears 5.5m and Uncharted 2 is getting on 5m with Gears 2 on just over 5.5m. I can guarantee that Sony are happier about Uncharted than MS are about Gears. One franchise is showing growth the other isn't. That is what is most important. The third Uncharted should go on to sell 6-7m copies while Gears 3 will sell to the same 5.5m people unless MS and Epic find a way to change it up.

Why Microsoft would let it go? Well the asking price is very high and if Gears 3 does what 2 did and shows little to no growth then that price may not be worth paying and Epic are free to port Gears 1-3 to PS3 within a 2 years.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Maximus

When MS and Epic both expected in excess of 8m for the title I think you can consider 5m tanking. I'm telling you what they said and why Gears 3 exclusivity was up in the air for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I think 5m is pretty damn good, but the franchise showed no growth which means very few new owners have bought into the title. Contrast that to Uncharted (Sony's competitor series) The first has sold 4m vs Gears 5.5m and Uncharted 2 is getting on 5m with Gears 2 on just over 5.5m. I can guarantee that Sony are happier about Uncharted than MS are about Gears. One franchise is showing growth the other isn't. That is what is most important. The third Uncharted should go on to sell 6-7m copies while Gears 3 will sell to the same 5.5m people unless MS and Epic find a way to change it up.

Why Microsoft would let it go? Well the asking price is very high and if Gears 3 does what 2 did and shows little to no growth then that price may not be worth paying and Epic are free to port Gears 1-3 to PS3 within a 2 years.

Thanks for clarifying. The asking price for Epic needs to be sky high.

[Havok83]

I honestly could care less if Gears ever came to the PS3

[Psx0005]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I can only imagine what GameFAQS looks like right now with this rumor type news. I think all the game developers sit down together and put out news like this to have a good laugh at the reactions.

Agreed.